While I agree that the international community should stand together and stop leaders killing their own people who protest against their rule, I have to say we are very selective about which countries we decide to intervene with.
I was in favour of removing Saddam, and I watched as their pulled his statue down and people swarmed it, slapping it with their footwear, and for me that was why we should have gone in. My problem with that war is that it wasn't sanctioned by international agreement, the information that was given to us at the time was 'sexed' up for no other reason to gain support, and at the end of the day we didn't go in to help the people, we went in because of the oil.
We sold Gaddafi the very weapons he is using to slaughter his own people, and cameron even took a load of arms dealers to the middle east on his 'mission of peace and unity', the hypocracy in our foreign policy is shameful.
The main reason the west will get involved in Libya they will claim is to stop human rights attrocities, but I think we all know that the government wants to go in because of the oil.
If we are to take the stance that we will only intervene when there is human rights violations, then why are we also not talking about invading the other countries that are slaughtering and oppressing their people by force?
Originally Posted by Scotty
